Two-thirds of those surveyed in a new Bay Area poll think tighter airport security has reduced the threat of terrorism, and an overwhelming majority favor tougher measures such as arming pilots.

The Field Research poll commissioned by the Bay Area Council nonetheless found local travelers torn about the sacrifices posed by increased security in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terrorist hijackings.

For example, 43 percent of those polled said longer security lines had greatly or somewhat reduced their desire to travel, and 47 percent shared similar concerns about delays hampering on-time arrival. Yet, 87 percent say it's worth the extra time to improve safety.

"The poll shows that the majority of Bay Area residents will put up with travel delays to know that new airport security measures are going to be tight,

precise and secure," said Steven Gottlieb, spokesman for the Bay Area Council,

a public policy organization sponsored by local businesses.

At the same time, 82 percent of those polled agreed that "there are still many other things that haven't been done to improve airport security." About 63 percent of residents say that includes allowing pilots to carry firearms in the cockpit for protection, while 34 percent oppose the idea.

Federal transportation officials initially opposed arming pilots. But lobbying by pilots' groups and polls showing public support spurred Congress to include a provision in the Homeland Security Act allowing specially trained pilots to carry guns voluntarily.

As soon as spring, the first of an estimated 30,000 -- out of a total 100, 000 U.S. airline pilots -- could begin carrying guns, according to the Allied Pilots Association.

Gottlieb said he thought support for stronger security reflected concern about foiled terrorist attacks -- like the man convicted of trying to use a "shoe bomb" to blow up a flight from Paris to the United States -- and accidental checkpoint breaches that force airport evacuations.

"The way the security measures are now, although improved, they aren't where they need to be for travelers to feel more secure," Gottlieb said. "More work needs to be done."

The survey of 600 Bay Area adults is accurate to within plus or minus four percentage points, pollsters said. It was taken in late September -- before the federal government completed its Nov. 19 takeover of airport security nationwide. The new Transportation Security Administration has added more undercover air marshals on jetliners and strengthened cockpit doors.

Passengers may have their patience tested further on Dec. 31 when all checked luggage must be screened for weapons and luggage.

"People definitely want improved security, and I think they've seen it in the past year with the new screeners and bomb-detection systems," said San Francisco International Airport spokesman Mike McCarron. "But they just don't want to be inconvenienced. So there's a balance we have to strike."

At SFO Thursday, most passengers lauded the courtesy and organization of the new, federally trained passenger screeners.

"It was fantastic," a San Francisco woman said in describing the new checkpoint screening. "They (screeners) were very friendly, very efficient and very thorough."

"It made me feel safe," another passenger said on her way to visit family in Missouri.

But Canadian businessman Scott Fitzsimmons was more tepid in his praise. "I travel a lot, and I find security very inconsistent from airport to airport. I've seen better security than this airport; I've seen worse."

For example, he said, his belt, shoes or watch will trigger metal detectors at some airports, but not others. Likewise, some screeners inspect his cellular phone, laptop and Palm Pilot, but others don't.

Despite the polls' support for arming pilots, a sampling of SFO passengers showed opposition.

"If there are guns on a plane, (terrorists) could possibly get access to guns," said Auran Piatigorsky of San Francisco, who was headed with his wife on a Colorado ski vacation. "I don't think that makes anyone safer."

"Well, they should keep the pilots from drinking first," said another passenger, referring to a couple of recent incidents where airline pilots were found to be intoxicated in the cockpit.

Bay Area poll
Airport security and air travel
Bay Area residents were asked to weigh the impact of post-Sept. 11 airport
security improvements.
-- Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about
airport security after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?
The new airport security measures are effective in reducing the risks of
future terrorism.
Agree strongly 17%
Agree somewhat 49%
Disagree somewhat 21%
Disagree strongly 11%
No opinion 3%
.
The new airport security measures should be streamlined and made less time-
consuming for passengers.
Agree strongly 36%
Agree somewhat 33%
Disagree somewhat 18%
Disagree strongly 9%
No opinion 4%
.
There are still many other things that haven't been done to improve airport
security.
Agree strongly 45%
Agree somewhat 37%
Disagree somewhat 10%
Disagree strongly 4%
No opinion 5%
.
Pilots should be allowed to carry firearms to protect themselves in the
cockpit.
Agree strongly 36%
Agree somewhat 27%
Disagree somewhat 13%
Disagree strongly 21%
No opinion 3%
.
The extra time needed for security checks of passengers at airports is
worth it to improve safety.
Agree strongly 52%
Agree somewhat 35%
Disagree somewhat 7%
Disagree strongly 5%
No opinion 1%
Source: Field Research Corp.
Chronicle Graphic